Action for Animals Rights DBA North County Humane Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953401404
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Atascadero, CA, USA
Phone
8055402680
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,329,536
Expenses
$395,797
Assets
$2,489,882
Liabilities
$9,097

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARTHA PEDERSEN (President)
  • JAN LYNCH (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • DENISE MILARDO (Director)
  • LINDA CALDWELL (Director)
  • BRENDA TIERSMA (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. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To improve the health and well-being of animals in san luis obispo county by providing critical support services to animals, promoting positive human/animal relationships and responsible guardianship and advocating for animal welfare issues.

What it reported doing in 2016

Operate and maintain a "no kill for life" shelter which houses an average of 200 cats while preparing them for adoption into loving homes. We also provide spay/neuter discount certificates and education information about spay/neuter benefits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - 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 filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 91
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21%; rating input score 21
  • Program expense ratio: 67.2%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 70.2%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.29; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 38.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 45.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21% of revenue deployed · 67.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $266K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 21/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.