Love Animals

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454102147
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$211,080
Expenses
$267,561
Assets
$53,332
Liabilities
$31,442

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Irvine (President)
  • Jason Humphrey (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • John Irvine (President)
  • Jason Humphrey (Vice President)
  • Laura Irvine (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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Love Animals is a crowdfunding website that helps animal welfare and wildlife conservation non-profits connect with micro-donors to raise money for critically needed projects.

What it reported doing in 2017

During 2017 Love Animals funded projects for more than 210 nonprofit organizations throughout the United States focused on animal welfare and wildlife conservation. These funds were donated by approximately 3,000 individual donors on our crowd-funding website, www.loveanimals.org. Love Animals continues to operate in a very efficient manner, with extraordinarily low fundraising and G&A expense levels.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 97
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 93.9%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $117.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 45.2%; rating input score 45; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -26.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -29.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -45.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $251K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2014 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 9 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 45/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.