Lakota Animal Care Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450551967
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Custer, SD, USA
Phone
9706820929
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,435
Expenses
$102,499
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • VIRGINIA RAVNDAL (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • VIRGINIA RAVNDAL (PRESIDENT)
  • FRANKEE WHITE DRESS (VP)
  • PEGGY BEHRENS (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Providing basic animal health care for dogs, cats and horses on the pine ridge reservation at little or no cost. Care includes spay/neuter, vaccinations, other basic animal health care, rescue, relocation, and enhancing awareness and compassion for animals through education.

What it reported doing in 2016

Spay/neuter dogs and cats. Provide basic animal health care including distemper/parvo vaccinations, mange treatment, flea, tick and worm treatment. Train and certify community-based lakota animal care givers to be able to provide the basic animal health care. Rescue and relocate to no-kill adopting shelters and take dogs to direct adoption. Engage lakota children in a program to enhance awareness and compassion for animals including the "sunka scouts" program and the "reading with animals" program. Work toward universal respect for all our relations. Worked on proposing changes to indian tribal ordinances relating to animal well- being. Completed operations, distributed assets, and dissolved the corporation as of 2.14.17.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 99
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.2%; rating input score 97

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7,042.8%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st 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: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -34.7% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -22.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $100K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.