Magics Mission Beagle & Hound Rescue Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814504289
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Buffalo, NY, USA
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,243
Expenses
$14,543
Assets
$15,390
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Lauren Gauthier (Director)
  • Tracy Conmy (Director)
  • Julia Zioto (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To rescue dogs from shelters and unwanted by owners; provide them with medical veterinary care and place them in permanent family homes. We also focus on dogs with special medical needs and senior hospice dogs to provide them with vet care food foster homes and comfort.

What it reported doing in 2025

Boarding expenses: when dogs lose their foster home or in temporary circumstances need safe housing until a home setting is secured.

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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.8%; rating input score 61
  • 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: 37.4%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 49; 49th 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: -15.5% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.5% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.8% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $14K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.