Animal Welfare League of Alexandria
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 540796610
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Alexandria, VA, USA
- Phone
- 7037465652
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,728,224
- Expenses
- $4,083,219
- Assets
- $10,475,908
- Liabilities
- $383,877
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Stella Hanly (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Stella Hanly (Executive Director): $200,947 total reported compensation
- Megan Hess (Director of Engagement): $137,203 total reported compensation
- Elsa Sanchez (Director of Finance): $127,977 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 mission of the Animal Welfare League of Alexandria is to inspire compassion for all living things, to provide shelter to animals in need, and to promote adoptions, animal welfare, and responsible pet ownership. Our belief that all animals deserve love and care, and that supporting people AND pets enriches our community, is the motivation that fuels our mission.
What it reported doing in 2024
ANIMAL CARE: In FY25, we cared for 2,386 animals (1201 cats, 981 dogs, 204 small animals), and providing their daily care was our largest expense. Our team of shelter volunteers assisted AWLA staff to provide top-level care for every animal at the shelter. In FY25, shelter volunteers donated 23,094 hours to the AWLA, roughly equivalent to 11 full-time employees. These volunteers performed a range of tasks, including helping with laundry and dishes; walking dogs; staffing events; cleaning animal enclosures; maintaining the yards and landscaping; cleaning carriers; transporting animals to vet appointments; stocking supplies; socializing cats, feeding animals and helping at events. Volunteers also donated their time from home, helping our organization administratively as well as with enrichment activities for animals.To expand our sheltering capability and provide a unique, home-like environment for animals who might not thrive in the shelter (including newborn and sick or injured animals), we also coordinated a team of more than 100 volunteer foster providers to care for 369 animals in their homes in FY25. The AWLA strives to find placement for every animal that can safely and humanely be rehomed, and in FY25, we found placement for 96% of the pets in our care. To achieve this goal, our staff and volunteers went above and beyond to assist animals in our custody, focusing on animals' health, behavior, enrichment and more to provide them with the best care on their way to finding new homes. We also continue to work closely with other regional shelters and rescues in areas that may not have the same resources as ours, transferring animals to our facility to help those organizations with overpopulation and to increase our combined life-saving efforts. In FY25, we brought in 504 animals from several shelters and rescues in Virginia, as well as West Virginia, Maryland, and Florida. Many of the animals that come to us have health issues ranging from fairly minor to extremely serious, including infections, bone breaks/fractures, heart problems, diabetes and other chronic illnesses. Our shelter veterinarian is responsible for examining the animals at the shelter and determining how to best meet each of their medical needs. In FY25, 329 animals with major medical concerns were treated by the AWLA.
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 the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 69
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 64
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th 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: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- 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: 13.6%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.57; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 73% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $201K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.