Animal Welfare League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
362235155
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago Ridge, IL, USA
Phone
7086368586
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,164,442
Expenses
$3,968,934
Assets
$24,004,118
Liabilities
$292,175

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Chris Higens (President/Exec. Director)
  • Gail Kinzie (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Leo Paul (Veterinarian): $177,433 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Organization prevents cruelty to animals by the advancement of humane education and maintenance of animal shelters. The Animal Welfare League also provides animal adoption programs, veterinary, and clinical services.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Organization provides food, shelter, and medical care for unwanted, stray or lost animals. It offers spay/neuter services and veteranary service for limited income pet owners. It also provides information about humane treatment of animals, animal rescue, animal cruelty investigations, animal assisted therapy and a pet food pantry.

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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.5%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $141.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 35.6%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.05; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.5% of revenue deployed · 79.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 8 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $436K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.