Animal Protective Foundation of Schenectady Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
140472728
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Schenectady, NY, USA
Phone
5183743944
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,915,341
Expenses
$3,415,879
Assets
$11,024,565
Liabilities
$396,878

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • OTTO ZAMEK (PRESIDENT)
  • JUDITH MYSLIBORSKI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOE LISSELA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOE LISSELA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $168,268 total reported compensation
  • SARA SOSNOW (VETERINARY MEDICAL DIRECTOR): $157,358 total reported compensation
  • STEPHANIE L JOHNSON (COO): $127,218 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide care and adoption services for homeless animals and educate the public about spay/neuter programs and animal care.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community services: provides numerous services to the community including our canineacademy, a monthly pet bereavement support group, humane education classes to schools and youth groups, a pet food pantry, and our petguardian program where we temporarily care for pets of victims of domestic violence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.2%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.23; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.4%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.2% of revenue deployed · 74.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $126K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.