Oipa-international Organization for Animal Protection-onlus - Non-prof

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
981471007
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022
Location
Ceriano Laghetto, Monza Brianza, IT
Phone
3926427882
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$500,500
Expenses
$530,500
Assets
$500,500
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Massimo Pradella (President)
  • Massimo Comparotto (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Massimo Pradella (President): $18,000 total reported compensation
  • Massimo Comparotto (Vice President): $18,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Organization's mission consists in the defence of animal rights and in the defence of the animals from every kind of mistreatment. It also follows the purpose of improving the public health through the abolishment of any kind of animal experiment

What it reported doing in 2022

Emergency Ukraine: since the outbreak of war OIPA Onlus has concretely supported animals (stray and owned pet) inside and outside Ukraine affected by war as well as local and neighbouring associations and volunteers that, in the midst of war and in a steadily more difficult context, have worked round the clock to save and assist animals. OIPA delivered aid for animals such as food, pet accessories, transport cages, vet supplies and other useful material.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 41
  • Accountability: 10
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: -6%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.8%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $530K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $18K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 38 of 40 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2020 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.