4 Lucky Dogs Pet Rescue Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810956496
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Valrico, FL, USA
Phone
9419605700
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$54,218
Expenses
$47,598
Assets
$10,777

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • THERESA LORENZI (DIRECTOR)
  • ROBIN MARSH (DIRECTOR)
  • TOM MARSH (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Rescue pets and place in forever homes.

What it reported doing in 2017

In 2017 we brought a total of 57 dogs 4 kittens into rescue. At least one dog from 2016 continues to be a registered therapy/service dog. All 57 pets were medically treated (shots & rabies), and then spayed/neutered if intact. 51 of those dogs were successfully rehabilitated and rehomed. At the end of the year, 6 dogs and 4 cats remained with fosters. 8 dogs were sent through a 6 week obedience class prior to being adopted. We also supported 18 additional dogs by courtesy posting them for adoption and assisting them medically. We continued our program called "lucky dogs 4 life" in which we accept hospice dogs into rescue throughout the year and place them with committed fosters for quality end of life.

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 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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.2%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.23; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 72% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 60.4% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 88.7% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $48K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.