Community Concern for Animals Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
592790905
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2010, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Phone
8139204007
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$401,799
Expenses
$381,586
Assets
$129,183
Liabilities
$1,978

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • BEVERLY TULLIS (Director)
  • RODNEY TULLIS (Director)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Animal rescue

What it reported doing in 2015

Providing vet care, housing and feeding of stray 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 2
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.7%; rating input score 2
  • Program expense ratio: 1.8%; rating input score 2
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.34; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 81.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 30.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.7% of revenue deployed · 1.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 2/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.