Anti Animal Cruelty Campaign

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
820774591
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Peoria, AZ, USA
Phone
6026841360
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Wildlife Preservation, Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,217
Expenses
$219,774
Assets
$69,168
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT TAYLOR (PRESIDENT)
  • BONNIE LEPLEY (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT TAYLOR (PRESIDENT)
  • BONNIE LEPLEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SALINA BACKWITH (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To provide world wide relief and reducing animal suffering as a result of hunger, poverty, disease, war, natural disasters and other circumstances and engage in disease prevention, feeding, medical supplies and food distribution activities for charitable classes of animals.

What it reported doing in 2024

Anti Animal Cruelty Campaigns program has established a wild animal sanctuary park in Montana. The Organization has provided for an easement of a parcel of land for wild animal conservation. It has fenced the property, established an artesean well, and placed water tanks for the animals. The Organization also distributes feed, hay and vetenarian care to the animals.

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 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.
  • 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.2%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 98.8%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $703.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • 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: 49.5%; rating input score 50; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.7%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 35.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.2% of revenue deployed · 98.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $217K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.