Neubeck Animal Rescue
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 990515760
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Somerset, PA, USA
- Phone
- 8143418812
- Rating
- 91
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Animal Protection and Welfare
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $73,094
- Expenses
- $75,948
- Assets
- $2,491
- Liabilities
- $2,945
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ARMSTRONG DAVID (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- ARMSTRONG DAVID (PRESIDENT)
- NEUBECK ARMSTRONG ANITA (SECRETARY)
- ARMSTRONG SCOTT (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Neubeck animal hospital is dedicated to providing lifelong sanctuary and compassionate care for rescued animals, both large and small. As a permanent home rather than a rehoming facility, we offer refuge to horses and donkeys saved from kill pens and to dogs and cats who have been abandoned or surrendered. Our mission is to ensure that every animal entrusted to our care lives in safety, receives proper nourishment and veterinary attention, and experiences dignity and kindness for the duration of its life.
What it reported doing in 2025
Provided veterinary care and rehoming facilities to rescued animals, including horses, donkeys, dogs and cats.
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
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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
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: -3.9%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.18; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $76K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.