Helping Animals Living Overseas Halo Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 461469363
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Cambridge, MA, USA
- Phone
- 8574173474
- Rating
- 94
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $48,729
- Expenses
- $57,762
- Assets
- $20,961
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Amy Reuss (President)
People named in this filing
- Amy Reuss (President)
- Cheryl McAuliffe (Treasurer & Assistant Clerk)
- Sophia Maniaci (Clerk)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Helping Animals Living Overseas, Inc. (HALO) supports animal welfare projects overseas. The first project was construction of a non-profit animal hospital, cat sanctuary, and adoption center in Isla Mujeres, Mexico. The facility was opened in the fall of 2014. HALO has been providing ongoing operating support for the Isla Mujeres clinic since its opening. The clinic now sees more than 2,000 animals annually. Of these, approximately 30% are homeless and are treated free of charge. The balance are owned and most are from low-income homes so treatments are subsidized.
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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 99
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 97.6%; rating input score 98
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -18.5%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $56K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.