Barking Hound Village Foundation In
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 261545496
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990 2015
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA
- Phone
- 4048975651
- Rating
- 58
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6
- Expenses
- $4,109
- Assets
- $234
- Liabilities
- $39,588
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID YORK (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DAVID YORK (PRESIDENT): $94,887 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
This organization's mission is to promote the humane care of animals.
What it reported doing in 2015
The principal activities of barking hound village foundation, i nc. Are to provide adoption services for animals.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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.
The verdict
MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 10
- Sustainability: 2
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 50.1%; rating input score 50
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -68,383.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 169.18; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: -147.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -46.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -48.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 50.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.