Dharma Voices for Animals

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455372693
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Solana Beach, CA, USA
Phone
8589257969
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare
Affiliation
Buddhism

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$308,479
Expenses
$504,209
Assets
$656,005
Liabilities
$5,392

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT P ISAACSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT P ISAACSON (PRESIDENT): $67,550 total reported compensation
  • ANDREA DIAZ BALABUSZKO (OPERATIONS M): $51,583 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Dharma Voices for Animals (DVA) works to end animal suffering within Buddhist communities by promoting plant-based living and a cruelty-free lifestyle, building a global community that connects Buddhist practice with compassion for animals. Katie seeks to help people connect their devotion to religious practice with compassion for animals and is excited to support DVA by helping to raise awareness of the important work being done and fostering engagement with members and supporters to advance the mission of compassionate living. Katie also has a Master’s degree in Environmental Law and Policy from Vermont Law and Graduate School, and her varied experience includes direct animal care, legislative work, and running animal advocacy campaigns. Portrait of a smiling middle-aged man with gray hair, wearing a light blue dress shirt and a patterned tie, against a neutral background.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization is the only international buddhist animal rights/advocacy organization in the world. We educate and advocate for vegetarian diets.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 50% for direct work, and 50% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -63.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 100% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.8% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $390K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 18/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.