American College of Veterinary Dermatology Research Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311524265
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nevada City, CA, USA
Phone
6199956572
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Medical Research N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$209,166
Expenses
$75,043
Assets
$1,688,001
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALISON DIESEL (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • ANDREW ROSENBERG (PRESIDENT)
  • ADAM PATTERSON (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ANTHEA SCHICK (PAST PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ALISON DIESEL (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • ANDREW ROSENBERG (PRESIDENT)
  • ADAM PATTERSON (PAST PRESIDENT)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The american college of veterinary dermatology (acvd) research foundation provides funding and support to universities, students, veterinary practices, and other related institutions involved in the research and education of veterinary dermatology.

What it reported doing in 2024

American college of veterinary dermatology (acvd) research foundation funded projects have led to new diagnostic procedures and treatments for veterinary skin disease, as well as the recognition of new diseases. The acvd research foundation is funded by donations from veterinary pharmaceutical companies, individual veterinarians, and pet owners. Veterinarians and pet owners may choose the foundation as a way to honor a special pet. Donations made in the name of the pet are individually recongized and support the general research fund.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 86% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 19
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 90
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 15.3%; rating input score 15
  • Program expense ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 26
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 78.4%; rating input score 78; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 64.1%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 22.49; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 15.3% of revenue deployed · 26.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $20K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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: Mission deployment rate scored 15/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.