Animals First Aid NFP
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 991042428
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 7733002544
- Rating
- 49
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $211,091
- Expenses
- $169,560
- Assets
- $41,531
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dhiraj Dutta (Vice President)
- Tapiwa Machingauta (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Tendayi Dewah (Secretary / Treasurer): $13,615 total reported compensation
- Dhiraj Dutta (Vice President): $11,292 total reported compensation
- Tapiwa Machingauta (President): $7,358 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Animals First Aid supports grassroots animal welfare groups worldwide by raising funds, sharing resources, and responding to urgent rescue and care needs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Animals First Aid conducted life-saving rescue operations for animals in crisis, including abandoned, abused, and injured animals. The organization coordinated emergency responses to natural disasters, conflict zones, and severe neglect cases. Through partnerships with grassroots shelters and rescue groups, AFA provided transportation, veterinary care, food, and shelter to over 3,000 animals globally. This program ensured immediate aid and stabilization for animals in urgent need. The organizaiton also focuses on sustaining underfunded animal shelters through monthly grants, veterinary funding, and infrastructure support. AFA partnered with dozens of shelters worldwide helping them access medicine, spay/neuter programs, and staff training. The program directly improved the health, safety, and adoptability of more than 5,000 animals, reducing euthanasia rates and enhancing welfare standards.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.
The verdict
MIXED - The strongest available result is that a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 51
- Accountability: 43
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 72.2%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
- Requires narrative reports: Pass
- Conducts field audits: Fail
- May suspend future funding: Fail
- Requires financial reports: Fail
- Conducts site visits: Fail
- Requires grant agreements: Fail
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 19.7%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 19%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 58% of revenue deployed · 72.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $122K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $14K · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.