Angel on a Leash

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161782096
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Port Washington, NY, USA
Phone
6462593811
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$29,814
Expenses
$153,492
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID FREI (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • RANNY GREEN (DIRECTOR)
  • DEBRA HAMILTON (DIRECTOR)
  • DR ANNE HOHENHAUS (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

Angel on a leash champions working with therapy dogs in health care facilities, schools, rehabilitation, hospice, extended care, correctional facilities, and crisis intervention. Through advocacy, education, research and service, angel on a leash promotes the role of the human-animal bond in enhancing human health and quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2016

Angel on a leash accomplishes its mission every day through its primary program of partnerships with health care facilities and related organizations around the country. More than 100 trained and insured therapy dog teams performed thousands of visits to these partner facilities in 2016, enhancing human health and well-being, reaching patients/clients, families and professional staff in a variety of settings over the course of the year. Angel on a leash supports these partners by attending public events, trade shows and conferences, promoting the practice and educating the general public about the benefit of interacting with therapy dogs. Angel on a leash was the recipient of much media attention, which added to the awareness-building for the activity.

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 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 60.3%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -414.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.6% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -35.2% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -39.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 60.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $93K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.