Douglas Animal Welfare Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300028975
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Gardnerville, NV, USA
Phone
7752677325
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$400,255
Expenses
$301,751
Assets
$1,125,597
Liabilities
$29,670

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kathryn Dodge (President)
  • Adrienne Chaney (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Gwen Blanc (Director)
  • Mary Doran (Director)
  • Casey McClain (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of DAWG is to better the lives of the Douglas County, Nevada animals by improving their adoptability and thereby increasing the adoption rate while at Douglas County Animal Care and Services, educating the community about responsible pet ownership, and engaging in other projects and activities that will yield positive benefits to the animals, owners, and citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

DAWG spent $58,804 assisting Douglas County Animal Shelter DCAS animals get adopted. They did this by paying for necessary veterinary care, absorbing the cost of spays and neuters, purchasing vaccinations and subsidizing adoption fees. DAWG provided $71,124 of assistance to Douglas County animals by helping low income families pay for necessary and emergency veterinary care, spays and neuters and vaccinations. DAWG spent $46,583 to trap, sterilize and return feral cats to their colonies or foster friendly and community cats until they can be adopted.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.4%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 24.6%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.73; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $302K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.