Michigan Animal Health Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237086380
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Okemos, MI, USA
Phone
5173474710
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$37,794
Expenses
$19,319
Assets
$396,328
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BONNIFER BALLARD CAE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • JOHN TRAMONTANA CAE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENDED 3/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • BONNIFER BALLARD CAE (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $101,598 total reported compensation
  • JOHN TRAMONTANA CAE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENDED 3/24)): $64,208 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide financial assistance to individuals and institutions for educational and scientific purposes in order to advance science to benefit the health and welfare of animals.

What it reported doing in 2024

The companion animal fund was created to subsidize non-elective veterinary care for pets whose owners would otherwise be unable to afford it. Some of the groups most dependent on companion animals often experience difficulty in obtaining treatment in the case of unforeseen circumstances due to inadequate finances. Thus, mahf created the companion animal fund to help pet owners who have income under the federal poverty level, are on medicaid or are on wic (women infants & children) get the necessary care for their beloved animals.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.4%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 64.9%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 73.8%; rating input score 74; 49th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 48.9%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 20.51; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 109.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.4% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.4% of revenue deployed · 64.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $13K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $102K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.