Animal Ark Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 943069883
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2022, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-T 2023, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Grangeville, ID, USA
- Phone
- 2089830550
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $74,678
- Expenses
- $172,442
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DORI DIXON (President)
- KAREN COX (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- DORI DIXON (President)
- KAREN COX (Vice President)
- MARY ANN DAVIDSON (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Animal ark's mission is to provide humane treatment of abandoned pets and pets of individuals who lack sufficient resources to fully provide for some of their pets needs.
What it reported doing in 2023
Animal ark contributed funds to other exempt animal shelters during 2022. The other animal shelters provide services to care for animals and to reduce the population of stray animals.also directly provided for the spaying and neutering of many animals locally.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Sustainability: 10
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -130.9%; rating input score 7; 7th 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 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -11.3% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -34.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 4 of 4 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2020 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- 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.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.