New York Bully Crew

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274846322
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Deer Park, NY, USA
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Reported finances

Revenue
$973,623
Expenses
$905,586
Assets
$611,814
Liabilities
$344,200

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAROL FIELDS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • CAROL FIELDS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CRAIG FIELDS (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Founded in 2010, nybcs outreach is nationwide. We specialize in rescue of pitbulls, but no animal in need of rescue is denied help.

What it reported doing in 2025

New York bully crew (nybc), with the help of many volunteers, has rescued over 4,500 dogs since inception, including several hundred in 2024. Nybc has been able to place a large number of these in their permanent homes. Nybc also works wih several shelter-type organizations including hempstead animal shelter , brookhaven animal shelter, and seveal nys aspca locations. In 2015 a second physical location was established in staten island. Nybc also maintains a foster care program to acclimate younger puppies to human care and prepare for ultimate adoption.

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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.1%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 46.1%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.68; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.1% of revenue deployed · 46.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $417K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.