Animal Agriculture Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541384916
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
7035625160
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,150,062
Expenses
$1,082,835
Assets
$1,181,473
Liabilities
$582,191

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

Leadership & pay

44 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HANNAH THOMPSON (PRESIDENT & CEO)

People named in this filing

  • HANNAH THOMPSON (PRESIDENT & CEO)
  • DEREK YANCEY (CHAIR)
  • LISA MCCOMB (CHAIR ELECT)

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 animal agriculture alliance is a nonprofit organization that helps bridge the communication gap between farm and fork. We connect food industry stakeholders, engage food chain influencers and promote consumer choice by helping key audiences better understand modern animal agriculture.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education services: the alliance develops science-based, educational resources and programs specifically to engage the public and answer their questions about modern farm animal production. Additionally, the alliance provides programs to enhance agriculture stakeholders' awareness of consumer opinions about farm animal welfare and provides resources to help them better engage with the public. Much of this information is available, free of charge, via the alliance's website.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $28.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.8%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.09; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.3% of revenue deployed · 84.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 33 of 33 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $915K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 44 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.