Los Angeles County Animal Care Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 953909782
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Long Beach, CA, USA
- Phone
- 5627284610
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,578,826
- Expenses
- $2,505,553
- Assets
- $3,398,046
- Liabilities
- $2,505
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RENEE SIKAND (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- ABBY DOUGLAS (SECRETARY/DI)
- BLAIR DUGAN (DIRECTOR)
- BRITTANY MCCANN (TREASURER)
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
Provide funding support for humane education programs through the los angeles county department of animal care and control, and to purchase supplies and equipment and help make improvements to benefit shelter animals and provide for their care, comfort and adoption.
What it reported doing in 2024
The animal care foundation ("acf") achieved the following milestones, all made possible through the generosity of thousands of donors: 1. Adoption program: through the acf's adoption promotion program, we were able to reduce adoption fees for various promotions throughout the year which directly led to the adoption of dogs and cats. 2. Reuniting pets: the acf facilitated the reunion of pets with their families by lowering the costs associated with reclaiming lost pets. Many pet owners struggle to afford the fees for reclaiming their beloved pets, but the acf offers financial assistance to significantly reduce these costs and eliminate barriers to pet ownership. 3. Mobile veterinary clinics: the acf allocated funds to staff mobile veterinary clinics that bring essential pet services directly to pet owners at parks and event sites. These services include pet food and supplies, vet care, and vaccines. 4. Care vouchers: the acf provided care vouchers to pet owners in need of essential pet resources, such as pet food or veterinary care. Without this assistance, many of these pet owners would have had no choice but to surrender their pets to an animal care center. 5. Spay/neuter initiative: acf supports free and low cost spay and neuter for owned cats and dogs in los angeles county. The majority of these services were provided by non-profit partners, spay4la and simi valley nonprofit spay/neuter clinic, who conducts these surgeries via their mobile clinics.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- 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: -58.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.