Animal Protective Association of Missouri

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
430699783
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3146454610
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,814,637
Expenses
$9,635,240
Assets
$34,052,032
Liabilities
$659,050

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNIE CASTELLANO (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH JAVIER (EXECUTIVE DI): $208,675 total reported compensation
  • KIM BROWN (COO): $147,328 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Bringing people and pets together, advancing humane education and creating programs beneficial to the human/animal bond.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education - the association actively works to educate the public on animal welfare issues and the benefits of the human/animal bond with programs reaching schools, organizations, and children. Approximately 279 individuals and children were reached by these programs. Partnering with facilities, 180 hours were completed through our petreach program which connects pets with seniors in our community. The association also provides outreach programs to benefit the community. The domestic violence pet assistance program (safecare) assists victims of domestic abuse by fostering their pets while they regain their independence outside of a violent home. Safecare assisted 56 animals and of those, 48 were returned to their owners. Crisis housing assisted 38 animals at the association's brentwood & olivette locations, and of those, 30 were returned to their owners.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.2%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 35%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.53; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.7%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.2% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $8.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $209K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $934K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.