National Assistance Dogs Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821973581
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2019
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Paradise Valley, AZ, USA
Phone
6026631839
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Other Services - Specialty Animals

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$94,289
Expenses
$148,633
Assets
$42,921
Liabilities
$4,307

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SAMANTHA DARLING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/HEAD DOG TRAINER)
  • ANDREW M ARMSTRONG (PRESIDENT/SECRETARY)

People named in this filing

  • SAMANTHA DARLING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/HEAD DOG TRAINER)
  • ANDREW M ARMSTRONG (PRESIDENT/SECRETARY)
  • PATRICK J ARMSTRONG (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To raise, train and place vastly skilled assistance dogs to enrich lives in our community through specialized programs.

What it reported doing in 2019

Nadi raises, trains and places assistance dogs to people in need including civilians, veterans, first responders, and government agencies. Assistance dogs not only provide a specific service to their handlers, but also greatly enhance the quality of their handlers' lives from a sense of freedom and independence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -57.6%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 88.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -22% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $131K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2017 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.