Companion Animal Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271204719
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Phone
2254085360
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,564,175
Expenses
$3,648,654
Assets
$11,137,912
Liabilities
$252,430

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JILL R SERGIO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JACELYN HACKETT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JILL R SERGIO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $124,535 total reported compensation
  • JACELYN HACKETT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $75,960 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Caas mission is to create and maintain a compassionate and safe community for pets and people by serving as a welcoming community resource for animal welfare in east baton rouge parish.

What it reported doing in 2024

In 2024, caa took in 9,190 animals and achieved a save rate of 79.46%. They had 3,974 pet adoptions, 1,027 pets were transferred to rescue partners, 1,923 animals were place in foster homes, 1,028 pets were returned to their owners, 5,348 spay/neuter surgeries were performed and 2,001 trap-neuter-return surgeries were performed. Caa expanded their pets for life program, serving 56% more people and 46% more pets than in 2023. Through a collaborated effort with east baton rouge parish city council and lsus community outreach program, caa provided veterinary services to a record number of clients. Through their partnership with bissell pet foundation, their transport program transported 437 pets to rescue partners out of state and 627 pets to rescue partners in Louisiana.

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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 68.5%; rating input score 68
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.83 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.05; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.1% of revenue deployed · 68.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $125K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.