Animal Protection Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274225209
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2012
Forms available
Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2011, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Gilbert, AZ, USA
Phone
4802728992
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$278,224
Expenses
$284,400
Assets
$7,388
Liabilities
$9,477

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2012. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2012

As a means of promoting the overall well-being and high quality of life for animals, the organization provided financial support toward the rescue and adoption of distressed animals, some of which were dogs who qualified for further training in order to become service animals, which in turn provided these dogs with an ideal physical exercise environment customed to the physical needs of a dog, a properly trained and loving pet owner, and healthy living conditions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 17th 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: -2.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.28; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 149.3% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 53.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $18K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.