Military Animal Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465544969
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Chatsworth, CA, USA
Phone
8055511168
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Other Services - Specialty Animals

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$37,384
Expenses
$108,601
Assets
$528,898
Liabilities
$7,440

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TINA MARDU LYDICK (FOUNDER/PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • TINA MARDU LYDICK (FOUNDER/PRESIDENT)
  • VERNEE BARNETT (SECRETARY)
  • RONALD M LYDICK (DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide military veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress (pts), traumatic brain injury (tbi), military sexual trauma (mst), anxiety and depression comfort, support, companionship, and a means to heal through emotional support or psychiatric service dogs, certified/insured therapy dogs, and therapeutic equine program.

What it reported doing in 2025

Veteran pet support services includes comprehensive support model that includes short-term fostering, emergency boarding, veterinary care, grooming, and pet supply assistance, particularly when veterans are hospitalized or undergoing treatment.

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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: -190.5%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.87; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -64.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 58.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $64K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.