Jacksonville Friends of the Animals Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471266046
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Jacksonville, AR, USA
Phone
5012584580
Rating
34
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$57,897
Expenses
$78,200
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christine Henderson (President)

People named in this filing

  • Christine Henderson (President)
  • Hedy Cass (Treasurer)
  • Elvin Barrett (Secretary)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We raise money for spay/neuter surgery and fees associated with rescue efforts within the local community. We also raise money for special needs animals such as heartworm positive dogs, and injuries. Our goal is to help the reduce euthanasia rates through spay/neuter surgeries and assisting rescue groups who take pets from the shelter and place them in foster homes until adoption.

What it reported doing in 2024

Spay/Neuter helps decrease the number of homeless animals in our city. By sponsoring waived-fee adoptions, it encourages families to adopt, don't shop, thereby adding a sterilized dog or cat to their family. We also pay vet fees for heartworm treatment so the new adopter isn't burdened with that high fee. We help rescue groups in their efforts to decrease shelter population by providing temporary foster homes until forever homes can be found.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -35.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -75.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -20.8% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -68% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.