Amici Cannis
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 475463065
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Fort Collins, CO, USA
- Phone
- 9703054923
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,165,283
- Expenses
- $1,105,670
- Assets
- $927,623
- Liabilities
- $336,640
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HEATHER STEYN (PRESIDENT)
- ALEXANDRA ROTHLISBERGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ALEXANDRA ROTHLISBERGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $106,590 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our mission is to protect and improve the lives of animals incotacachi and surrounding indigenous villages, in ecuador. Our teamprovides high-quality veterinary services to stray dogs and cats, companion animals with owners, and those who cannot afford treatment. We combat abandonment and overpopulation, provide sterilization and emergency veterinary care, and teach children to respect and care for animals.
What it reported doing in 2025
Amici cannis USA is a funding program for other organizations, currently mainly located in ecuador. The purpose is funding programs and projects that are centered on animal welfare and social welfare.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 16
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 31
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 6.1%; rating input score 6
- Program expense ratio: 6%; rating input score 6
- Fundraising efficiency: $5,296.82 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Pass
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Pass
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Pass
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 5.1%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -59.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 47.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 69.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 6.1% of revenue deployed · 6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 1 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $66K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 6/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.