Alabama Spay Neuter Clinic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208709714
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2059560012
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,149,416
Expenses
$2,082,400
Assets
$738,024
Liabilities
$576,864

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BL HOWARD JR (PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN)
  • MARK NELSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARGARET FERRELL (BOARD MEMBER): $1,033,621 total reported compensation
  • MARK NELSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $95,663 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide high-volume, low-cost sterilization as the only humane, sustainable solution to the overpopulation of dogs and cats in central Alabama. To maintain the highest level of veterinary care and customer service. To address and respond to the needs of our customers to the best of our ability and assure that our services are available to everyone.

What it reported doing in 2024

To provide low-cost sterilization of companion and feral animals; to provide educational and informational services consistent with the humane care of companion and feral animals; and to decrease the overpopulation of these animals in targeted areas of Alabama.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 72% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 85.4%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $155.41 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 3.1%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.78; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 54.2%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.7% of revenue deployed · 85.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1M reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.