Animal-kind International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743230332
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Jemez Springs, NM, USA
Phone
5758340908
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$277,786
Expenses
$282,519
Assets
$410,340
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Karen Menczer (Executive Director)
  • Karen Rae (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Karen Menczer (Executive Director)
  • Karen Rae (Vice President)
  • Betsie Van Dyke (Secretary)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Animal-Kind International supports animal welfare organizations in poor countries, mainly in Africa, secondarily in Latin America/Caribbean. We raise money so they can spay/neuter, shelter, feed, and provide vet care for unwanted animals and in cruelty cases; conduct in-school and community humane education; and provide donkey and horse welfare programs. We support our Partner Organizations through ongoing disbursements so they always have a reliable source of funds and can focus on animal care and welfare. We reach and strengthen other animal welfare organizations through our annual Animal Welfare Organization Grant Program, providing funds for one-time projects based on a successful proposal. Through our Friendly Audit Program, we provide virtual volunteer mentors who provide technical and organizational support to target animal welfare organizations in Africa and Latin America/Caribbean.

What it reported doing in 2025

Program Area One, Support for AKI's 10 Partner Organizations. Our POs can use AKI funds for their priority animal welfare needs. In 2025: 1) Uganda Society for the Protection and Care of Animals used AKI funds for shelter operations (e.g., dog and cat food, staff salaries, vet and shelter supplies, spay/neuter and other vet care, and maintenance & construction of shelter facilities); 2) Sauvons nos Animaux-Congo used AKI funds for shelter operations (e.g., 100% of cat and dog food and shelter staff salaries, vet and shelter supplies, and transport); 3) Twala Trust-Zimbabwe covered almost 100% of the dog food needed for Doggy Tuesday feeding program, a new solar system at their shelter, and vet supplies, shelter supplies, and utilities at their shelter with a focus on benefiting the seniors of the Waggley Tail Club; 4) AKI funds for Bam Animal Clinics-Uganda covered 100% of their donkey vet clinics and humane saddle making training programs; 5) The Six Freedoms-Ghana covered almost 100% of their horse welfare activities including horse feed and nutrients for rescued horses, farrier services for beach horses, stipends to grooms, and horse stable inspection teams; 6) an Emergency Vet Fund overseen by Partner Have a Heart-Namibia for which AKI covered vet care for 92 cats and dogs; 7) Kingston Community Animal Welfare's (Jamaica) feeding, spay/neuter, other vet care, and rescue of cats and dogs living on Kingston's streets (almost 100% of the cost was covered by AKI) plus the purchase of a spay/neuter and rescue mobile -a used SUV; for 8) Liberia Animal Welfare & Conservation Society, we covered the cost of their humane education program and remote animal care clinics, as well as office/clinic rent; for 9) South Sudan SPCA we funded the cost of bringing 3 staff members from Kenya SPCA to South Sudan to train and help organize a spay/neuter campaign; and 10) Helping Hands for Hounds of Honduras used AKI funds for dog and cat food and vet supplies for the cats and dogs living at their old age/hospice sanctuary.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2,302.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.9%; rating input score 86; 53rd 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: 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.45; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $281K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.